I find it very interesting to consider de Stael’s Corinne and Austen’s Fanny Price in relation to each other, which is why I gravitated to the second discussion question listed for today. In posing Corinne as an enthusiastic character, de Stael seems to be celebrating the concept. Corinne’s enthusiasm seems to be at the root of all that is most admirable about her. Additionally, as noted by Lokke, de Stael poses enthusiasm in opposition of melancholy. I’ve been considering melancholy as a focal point for my final paper, so I’ve been really analyzing how it functions in the texts we’ve read. I interpret the melancholy in Corinne, or Italy as a symptom of and rebellion against oppressive ideologies. This interpretation could suggest that enthusiasm functions as an expression of freedom from such ideologies. For example, Corinne becomes a melancholy character only after she tries to adhere to the norms that are acceptable to Oswald and, in a much larger way, his country. In considering how Mansfield Park relates to these ideas, there are a number of contrasts to consider. First of all, it can be said that the oppositional binary of enthusiasm and melancholy is non-existent in Austen’s novel. This is certainly not to say that enthusiasm is not present, but rather that it functions differently. Mansfield Park seems to present enthusiastic characters in a much different way than does Corinne, or Italy. Lokke’s discussion of de Stael’s work suggests that de Stael defines enthusiasm as “tolerance, openness, and philosophic calm.” However, tolerance of and openness to new ideas seems to be viewed in a negative light in Mansfield Park. A prime example of this is Sir Thomas’s reaction to the play. His children are fully aware that he would disapprove of their launching a theater in his house, and he reinforces this idea of inflexible propriety by reacting, upon his return, precisely as they expected. To support this idea further, it is worth noting that characters who embody enthusiasm are often the least likeable, suggesting negative connotations. For example, Mrs. Norris is a character who seems willing to tolerate elements outside of her comfort zone, provided that they serve her agendas. However, Mrs. Norris is such an otherwise abrasive character that it is difficult, at least for me, to view this version of enthusiasm in a positive light. To further clarify the distinctions between treatments of enthusiasm in these two novels, I would draw attention to the fact that enthusiasm seems to be opposed to restraint/containment, instead of melancholy, in Mansfield Park. Whereas the oppositional binary set up in Corinne, or Italy favors enthusiasm, the one in Mansfield Park seems to favor restraint. This is primarily evidenced by the positing of Fanny, the epitome of restraint in the novel, as its heroine. She opposes the de Staelian idea of enthusiasm, instead accepting her lot in life as a necessary and finite circumstance. Despite this, she ultimately gets what she wants, seeming to deliver the message that restraint with be rewarded. Instead of celebrating the plenitude embodied by the enthusiasm of Corinne’s character, Mansfield Park seems to laud the restrictions of Fanny’s acceptance and (arguably ill-advised) tenacity. Of course, it is also important to consider that Austen’s approach may be less overt than de Stael’s. As noted in Edwards’s article, it’s widely posited that Austen is inviting a critique of Fanny, in addition to identifying her as a heroine. This would suggest that the relationship between enthusiasm and restraint is more complicated than it initially appears. I think that this ties into why Mansfield Park might be poorly titled Fanny, or England. If Austen is suggesting that Fanny’s function as a heroine is conflicted and not necessarily successful, then it doesn’t make sense to pose her as a symbol for the country. Although the idea of restraint might seem in accordance with the way that England is presented in Corinne, or Italy, we have to allow for the fact that Austen’s agenda was different from de Stael’s.
ENGL864 Response 6/17/14
I find it very interesting to consider de Stael’s Corinne and Austen’s Fanny Price in relation to each other, which is why I gravitated to the second discussion question listed for today. In posing Corinne as an enthusiastic character, de Stael seems to be celebrating the concept. Corinne’s enthusiasm seems to be at the root of all that is most admirable about her. Additionally, as noted by Lokke, de Stael poses enthusiasm in opposition of melancholy. I’ve been considering melancholy as a focal point for my final paper, so I’ve been really analyzing how it functions in the texts we’ve read. I interpret the melancholy in Corinne, or Italy as a symptom of and rebellion against oppressive ideologies. This interpretation could suggest that enthusiasm functions as an expression of freedom from such ideologies. For example, Corinne becomes a melancholy character only after she tries to adhere to the norms that are acceptable to Oswald and, in a much larger way, his country.
In considering how Mansfield Park relates to these ideas, there are a number of contrasts to consider. First of all, it can be said that the oppositional binary of enthusiasm and melancholy is non-existent in Austen’s novel. This is certainly not to say that enthusiasm is not present, but rather that it functions differently. Mansfield Park seems to present enthusiastic characters in a much different way than does Corinne, or Italy. Lokke’s discussion of de Stael’s work suggests that de Stael defines enthusiasm as “tolerance, openness, and philosophic calm.” However, tolerance of and openness to new ideas seems to be viewed in a negative light in Mansfield Park. A prime example of this is Sir Thomas’s reaction to the play. His children are fully aware that he would disapprove of their launching a theater in his house, and he reinforces this idea of inflexible propriety by reacting, upon his return, precisely as they expected. To support this idea further, it is worth noting that characters who embody enthusiasm are often the least likeable, suggesting negative connotations. For example, Mrs. Norris is a character who seems willing to tolerate elements outside of her comfort zone, provided that they serve her agendas. However, Mrs. Norris is such an otherwise abrasive character that it is difficult, at least for me, to view this version of enthusiasm in a positive light.
To further clarify the distinctions between treatments of enthusiasm in these two novels, I would draw attention to the fact that enthusiasm seems to be opposed to restraint/containment, instead of melancholy, in Mansfield Park. Whereas the oppositional binary set up in Corinne, or Italy favors enthusiasm, the one in Mansfield Park seems to favor restraint. This is primarily evidenced by the positing of Fanny, the epitome of restraint in the novel, as its heroine. She opposes the de Staelian idea of enthusiasm, instead accepting her lot in life as a necessary and finite circumstance. Despite this, she ultimately gets what she wants, seeming to deliver the message that restraint with be rewarded. Instead of celebrating the plenitude embodied by the enthusiasm of Corinne’s character, Mansfield Park seems to laud the restrictions of Fanny’s acceptance and (arguably ill-advised) tenacity.
Of course, it is also important to consider that Austen’s approach may be less overt than de Stael’s. As noted in Edwards’s article, it’s widely posited that Austen is inviting a critique of Fanny, in addition to identifying her as a heroine. This would suggest that the relationship between enthusiasm and restraint is more complicated than it initially appears. I think that this ties into why Mansfield Park might be poorly titled Fanny, or England. If Austen is suggesting that Fanny’s function as a heroine is conflicted and not necessarily successful, then it doesn’t make sense to pose her as a symbol for the country. Although the idea of restraint might seem in accordance with the way that England is presented in Corinne, or Italy, we have to allow for the fact that Austen’s agenda was different from de Stael’s.